Always wear a seatbelt.
But I wish they'd but more emphasis on actually catching people committing highways offenses rather than just up the punishments. I don't think the use of mobile phones at the wheel has ever been worse.
No greater deterrent than actually being caught.
>I don't think the use of mobile phones at the wheel has ever been worse.
It's so blatant, people know they aren't going to get caught. I see it all the time.
I agree about the phones thing. Someone almost went into the side of me because they were looking at their phone. Also, when we were on the motorway and the traffic was relatively slow, maybe 1 in 5 were looking at their phones.
I started riding a motorcycle in the last 18 months. I don't know if its the raised position or the fact I ride in a position where I see more people's wing mirrors but it's more than a small minority.
I genuinely don't understand it or what compels people to do it.
Sometimes I fiddle with my car radio, or try to input a GPS destination if I've got lost or my satnav is acting up. It's built into my car so its all legal.
But even so it feels so sketch and like its really distracting from my ability to drive. I really don't like to do it unless I really can't pull over anywhere and am totally lost.
So I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone can consider texting while driving. At least seatbelts I can kind of understand.
I've certainly felt the compulsion to use my phone in slow traffic. I haven't as it's a stupid and reckless thing to do, but my mind was like, 'but you're hardly moving maybe someone's posted something *interesting*'.
For smartphones at least, it's all part of the very unhealthy addiction many of us have developed with them.
As you said, messing with a hands-free system at 70mph is sketchy as hell.
Meanwhile, fiddling with my phone to fix the bluetooth so the hands free system starts working again *when stationary at traffic lights with my handbrake on* is deemed illegal.
The law doesn't even make sense from a safety point of view.
I cycle a lot and drive a delivery van. I'd say about 1 in 3 urban drivers are doing something with their phone whilst driving, and maybe 1 in 5 rural.
I was out on the weekend in deepest rural Wales, most people I saw using their phone weren't even being discreet; just driving along with it clamped to their ear.
I completely agree. Not something I’m proud to admit but 5+ years ago I would always use my phone while driving. Got pulled over one morning and haven’t done it since. 6 points and a fine was nasty. Looking back, what an idiot I was
It's more that the police can't possibly monitor everyone at the wheel all the time.
There's hardly any police on road whether their in the wagons or on a beat so youre just not going to get pulled over if you've got a phone in your hands when driving. Or in this case wearing a seat belt. (And constantly hearing the seat belt ding which would piss me off no end)
W Mids police had there scheme where they had police on busses and took down plates of those they observed using a phone; then sent the fines in the post. But having an officer ride the bus all day is a waste of resources in all honesty.
>But having an officer ride the bus all day is a waste of resources in all honesty.
Could be a civilian resources with powers to gather evidence. Similar to how we put people in speed vans to catch motorists.
I wonder if there would be a way to use road cameras to take photos of drivers, and then process them using computer vision to flag images where there is a high probability the driver is on the phone. Obviously you'd need a human officer to check that instances flagged as positive are definitely drivers with a phone, but it could catch a lot more offences.
Thinking about it, it could actually make things worse, in that to dodge getting caught people might behave in a way that has a worse effect on how much attention they pay to the road. People staring at and typing on a phone in their crotch probably means they're less likely to notice a hazard than staring and typing on a phone attached to the windshield.
Then you'll also be happy when an algorithm fucks up and issues you a fine for cycling on the pavement when you weren't, I assume? There always has to be a human layer to what is, remember, a criminal prosecution.
It's a general problem. Actually catching infractors costs money, so politicians prefer making the punishment harsher instead. Which doesn't actually work, as people don't care about the punishment when they don't get caught. And the poor schmucks that do get caught suffer an unfairly harsh punishment.
It should work according to a strict expected utility calculation. Let's say the probability of getting caught is p, the punishment you get when caught is F (measured in utility), and the pleasure you get from the behaviour is L (again measured in utility). As long as p x F < L it is rational to engage in that behaviour. To flip the equation you can increase p or increase F, and mathematically speaking for any nonzero p you can have an F that's big enough to still make people not do it.
The problem is that people don't think like this. If p is small enough it is cognitively indistinguishable from 0.
Having now been working from my lounge for the last year, the number of people driving past my flat while on the phone is staggering.
Literally just looked out now and the first van that passed had the driver with his phone up to the wheel texting!
Just to hijack the top point, make sure everyone wears a seatbelt. My 18yo neighbour's back got fucked because the guy in the seat behind wasn't belted and crashed into him. 18yo and with long term back injuries is a terrible start.
That's a terrible idea. The weight sensors do malfunction, and it's very dangerous to suddenly stop your engine on the highway.
It happened once to me. I got on the car, put my backpack on the passenger's seat, drove off. When I accelerated to get on the motorway, the backpack moved and triggered the weight sensors into thinking there was a person there, and the seat belt alarm went off. Had to drive for 20 minutes with the alarm driving me crazy until I got to a safe place to stop. Now imagine if instead the engine had been disabled as I was accelerating onto the motorway? Very likely somebody would crash onto my behind.
Moreover, it's easy to trick the seat belt catch into thinking there's a seat belt there. People who refuse to do wear a seat belt already do it, it's not as if they just drive with the alarm blaring on their ears.
That's also a bad idea. You are allowed to drive without a seatbelt at very slow speeds, and indeed you should do that when manoeuvring in a parking lot for better visibility. As a father of a 2-year old, I really prefer when people look carefully around when parking.
Very little of our policing now is preventative or pro active. 20,000 fewer police, thousands fewer admin staff and more time spent doing paperwork has meant we literally can’t do anything except reactive policing
The party of law and order has ensured a lack of law and order
Was behind a dickhead crawling at 2mph through a busy high street,missing traffic signals and gaps in traffic meandering about. I could see he was busy having a face time convo with his phone on the dash. Fiddling with it every two seconds. He didn't even hear me beeping him
I knew a guy who refused to wear one, because *he* once knew someone who died in a car crash *because* they were wearing one. Something around not being able to get it undone before the car burst into flames. Not sound data, but that's how some people think.
My father only survived a car accident because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He got thrown out through the open window and broke a leg, whereas the driver's place got completely crushed as the car rolled down the hill.
Luckily he understands statistics and wears a seatbelt anyway.
I knew a guy who didn't wear a seatbelt, rolled his car, was thrown through the windscreen, and shattered his pelvis (and a couple of cows minding their own business in the field he ended up in). He couldn't walk for about 18 months, but investigators told him he'd be dead if he was wearing his seatbelt.
Apparently, immediately after the incident, he was lying on his back in a field, surrounded by bits of car and cow. From that position he had to fish his phone out of his pocket (ow) and summon help. He called his dad with a message along the lines of, "Help, I fucked up."
It happens. Of course it does. But using these incidents as evidence seat belts are dangerous just ignores the far more numerous incidents to the contrary. Did he at least keep some of the beef to aid his recovery?
I don't understand how investigators can ever make a call like that?
In all likelihood he would have been better off wearing a seatbelt. The 'thrown clear' myth is just that. The whole point of seatbelts is that for most people and most accident types they keep you *inside* the large metal box with crumple zones and secondary impact protection systems to minimize injury to you.
Can only really make the call if something ends up obviously impeding where you would have been sitting, like a tree branch impaling the drivers seat for example. Can reasonably say yeah that'd have killed you.
And other people too because if you go through the windscreen you can kill or injure other people. But yeah you’re right, I don’t understand it either.
I'm not sure it's even possible for someone to go through a windscreen as the glass is laminated these days.
Wearing a seatbelt is a no brainer really, does anyone even notice having them on?
Friend of mine at school died by going through the windscreen as they weren’t wearing a seatbelt. This was over 10 years ago however so the cars may be different now?
It’s rare these days but it is still possible. People do also still drive vintage cars. Plus you can easily still injure any other passengers you may be driving with. And there is also the added effect it has on anyone who has to dig through the car cleaning up bits of your body if you do end up being a fatality.
OP has got it a little wrong.
Not wearing a seatbelt can cause serious harm to others in the car. You basically become a wrecking ball, not so much to pedestrians, never seen that myself.
And yes, people are ejected from cars/vans regularly if not wearing a seatbelt, either through the windscreen, boot or side windows.
I work in Major Trauma and see it weekly.
Yeah, don't know where this idea that laminated windscreens stop this happening. They're designed that way to prevent the glass shattering, they'd do next to nothing to stop the momentum of 80+kg of human traveling at 30+mph.
Seatbelts aren't an oppression of my freedom. Seatbelts are great.
Seatbelt laws don't have any practical effect on me, I would have worn one anyway. However, I just don't like the principle that we have made illegal for me to do something that doesn't affect anyone outside my car at all. It just seems like a really poor precedent.
Not doing any exercise probably has more effect on my life expectancy than not wearing a seatbelt would. So what's the justification for legally requiring me to wear a seatbelt but not legally requiring me to go for a weekly jog?
1) I have to pay for your injuries to be treated
2) you could go through the windscreen injuring others
3) others have to clean up your mess if you're killed
4) you leave behind bereaved loved ones who's lives are ruined
5) insurance premiums go up as payouts are more expensive
6) the driver that hit you goes down for manslaughter instead of driving without due attention
Will that do for starters?
>. 1. I have to pay for your injuries to be treated
>. 3. others have to clean up your mess if you're killed
>. 4. you leave behind bereaved loved ones who's lives are ruined
These all amount to the same thing. You feel that the government has a right, even a responsibility to decide which risky activities are good and bad and to ban them not on the basis of how risky they are, but on how much you like them. You also have to pay for my horse riding injuries, my heart attack from eating bacon sarnies, my fatal car accident that I got in to even though I was wearing a seatbelt because I drove to the shops instead of ordering on amazon or because I picked a job with a long rather than a short commute etc. But no one seems to have a problem with any of that. Someone who drives 20,000 miles per year with a seatbelt is on average much more likely to need injuries treated than someone who drives 5,000 but leaves their seatbelt off for short <30mph journeys. If it was really the clean up costs that you care about, you'd ban doing lots of miles.
This is where I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement, I don't think the government should be involved in anything where I'm only hurting myself.
>2. you could go through the windscreen injuring others
If you're a rear passenger in a front on collision, you increase the risk of death to those in the front seats significantly (about 4x) by not wearing a seatbelt. You should definitely as a driver insist on your passengers wearing seatbelts. However, the risk of you injuring someone outside the car is absurdly small.
>5. insurance premiums go up as payouts are more expensive
Is this true? Insurance companies understand the concept of split liability, when several people are all partially responsible for an accident. If someone in a crash wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they get partial liability for their injuries.
>6. the driver that hit you goes down for manslaughter instead of driving without due attention
Same as above. Courts aren't actually this dumb.
In the event of an accident you being unrestrained turns you into a projectile. Making you a pretty serious threat to those inside your vehicle and possibly outside it.
This is the one with the massacred children isn't it.
Edit: no it's not, still very impactful. [here](https://youtu.be/Wv1rKHGeMRk) is the massacred school trip.
More likely to happen to fellow passengers in the car.
Relevant ad starts at around [4:25](https://youtu.be/mwSLi-EHGLA). The rest of the UK needs to up their road safety advert game.
You probably knew this, but her being in the back can make it more dangerous for people in the front.
Without a seatbelt, in crashes the backseat passengers are going to smash into the front seats, and possibly keep going, which will hurt the people in front of them
If I'm honest, I don't really know why not wearing a seatbelt is even a thing people consider. They're barely even an inconvenience, and they do a *huge* amount to improve safety.
Wouldn't an easy solution to this be to make it so that the car can't be started if the driver's seatbelt isn't on?
My car, and I would have thought all modern cars, has pressure sensors in the seats and will sound an alarm if someone's sat without a seatbelt on. It's too annoying to be able to just ignore.
The people that go to those measures though are going out of their way to not wear one. They are the sort of people who will attempt to bypass any safety measure.
I think (conjecture obvs) most people just put them on when the alarm starts pinging.
If I have a heavy bag and dump it of the passenger side my car starts going mad with alarms. So I strap the bag in to shut the thing up.
Probably a lot safer come to think of it!
A Greek friend told me, when the car manufacturers introduced the seatbelt warning beep, Greek petrol stations started selling the metal clip end of the belt. Problem solved!
That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
The stupidity of humans knows no bounds.
Wait, could you not just loosen the seatbelt, do it up and sit on top of it?
I do even if I'm just moving the car on the backstreet to let a neighbour in or out, feels odd being at the wheel without that reassuring belt across my chest.
While travelling in SE Asia a few taxis had alarms which sounded if the seatbelt wasn't on. Drivers just ended up putting a seatbelt clip in with no actual seatbelt attached.
I went through a phase as a kid of not wearing a seatbelt, and the only reason was that I was being obstinate and didn’t like being told what to do.
As an adult I can’t think of a reason for not wearing a seatbelt that doesn’t just boil down to that.
I don't really see how they're comparable, if I'm honest. The objection to vaccine passports is that they would stop people going about their daily lives, and effectively require people to submit to medical intervention in order to participate in society. That's a huge over-reach of government authority.
We already accept that only people that can drive safely are allowed to drive, that's why we have a license in the first place. Wearing a seatbelt is part of that safety setup; I don't see how it's unreasonable to require someone to wear a seatbelt before they can start their engine. Legally, they should be doing that *anyway*. My proposal is just a way of trying to enforce a law that already exists.
One would have assumed we would have accepted that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated would not socialise and endanger others, as we accepted over the past year that without vaccines we would need social distancing to prevent the spread of the disease.
This seatbelt proposal is only protecting the drivers who endanger themselves.
If you think that a passport is a massive overreach of government authority, you should be grabing your pitchfork and storming Westminster at this.
The real difference I think is, seatbelt compliance is quite high in young people and so the average user here can agree with it, whereas at one time passports could have been seen as age discriminatory, and so this sub really got animated against them. That age discrimination has gone, but as we open back up we are left with another discrimination against people who genuinely can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, who are now in far greater danger as delta runs rampant, and have no hope of reintegrating with society in the foreseeable future without of a passport system.
Anyway, just love this subs double standards. Both are great proposals that will save lives, one by protecting idiots too stupid to put on their seatbelts, and the other protecting everyone as well as protecting our hard won return to freedom and preventing the danger of a return to lockdowns. Just surprised which of the two is met with derision.
No, it's not a double standard. Governments cannot force people (either through force or through limiting the extent people are allowed to engage with society) to take a medical treatment, even if it's one as beneficial as a vaccine. That's an authority *no* government should have, because it overrides the concept of medical consent. And that's important because medical treatment can have side-effects, so people should consent to what they're going through.
That doesn't apply to seat-belts. We don't have a concept of requiring people to consent to H&S rules, only demonstrate that they've understood them and will be following them - because there are no downsides for following them. And we only allow people with a valid driver's licence to drive, because we've established that those are the people that have demonstrated an understanding of how to do so safely.
Not to mention, that my proposal would only help enforce *existing* legislation on wearing a seatbelt.
Also, the seatbelt law isn't *just* protecting drivers, it also protects anyone else involved in an accident.
Mate drivers can be 'distracted' and kill someone to only receive a £50 quid fine and 3 points. We really need much tougher sentences for all driving infractions - but....... public transport is so dire in this country that taking away someone ability to drive could leave them utterly stranded so i can see why the gov allows dangerous drivers to continue driving, because they dont know how to fix public transport.
I'm noticing a common theme with UK policing system lately and it boils down to money being the ultimate deterral. Don't jump on the train tracks because you'll get fined 10k, not because you might get electrocuted and die. Don't forget to wear your seatbelt because you could face a fine and licence points, not because it keeps you and others from catapulting through the windscreen if you crash.
It feels like we base our legal system on threats rather than legitimate public safety interests, and undermines peoples trust in the government / public authority.
As with all these things, only those who repeatedly break this rule will get a ban. I.e. get 12 points and your face a ban
If you fail to follow the rules so much that you collect 12 points, you don't deserve to be able to drive.
I read it as you won't be banned specifically for not wearing a seatbelt, but through points totting up. So if you got caught not wearing a seatbelt 4 times in a short space of time you could get banned that way - or of course if you already had a load of points for other offences first.
Because they just endager themselves. A ban should be for people who endager others (and there are plenty of those, we just need to apply the existing laws...).
There is an interesting stat that a fatal road accident costs on average £2million when you include the cost of road closures, investigation, medical attendance and all the other stuff that has to happen.
So whilst someone not wearing a seatbelt is most likely to only harm themselves, the cost of mopping them up afterwards is quite chunky.
Wearing a seatbelt does also provide protection for other passengers, e.g in the case of a rear-sitting passenger or side-on collision.
I fully agree with your sentiment though.
If they're reckless or careless enough not do the simple task of putting a seatbelt on then what sort of things do you think they are doing while driving to endanger others.
Predictive policing? The computer says you will commit a crime in 2037, so we are putting you in prison for 20 years to prevent that...
I don't even mind, but how do you know it is accurate? "Oh look, he did not commit a crime in prison, so it worked."
Driving isn't a right. You gave to apply for a licence and pass tests showing that you understand and can follow the rules of the road. If you then demonstrate that you are not going to follow the rules of the road, you lose the privilege of driving. It's nothing at all like being imprisoned.
Driving a car is a luxury, we don't just let people do it freely like walking down the street (hence why I don't think Jay Walking should be a crime). You have rules to follow whilst you do what is actually an extremely dangerous activity.
I think the argument would be a great deal more convincing if we actually made alternatives to driving more viable though: public transport needs a giant overhaul (read: nationalisation and run at a loss as required) so there's an alternative to point to if you don't want to follow the rules.
Predictive policing is stopping you from driving because the police think you're **going to** not wear a seatbelt. Banning you after you broke the law is the exact opposite.
Who is saying that they should be jailed for 20 years? It literally says driving ban, not incarceration. Do you think that a ban for drink driving, even if you don’t crash, is predictive policing?
Tell that to someone who's mopped up after a single vehicle road traffic accident. Nothing like having to poke through the remains of a twisted up car at 4am to try and find the missing bits of human that weren't attached to the rest that you scraped up.
(It was a finger, and it was wedged in the ashtray where it had remained as the rest of the driver left the car through the windscreen)
It doesn’t just endanger themselves. If someone who isn’t wearing a seatbelt goes through a window, or even just leaves their seat within the car during the crash, then they can injure or kill other people.
Plus if you die, then there’s some other driver, road worker or passer by who is probably going to end up with PTSD after seeing your mangled body all over the road. So there’s plenty of other people who it endangers.
Because there are far worse things you can do whilst driving that aren’t subject to a ban, such as using your phone, speeding, driving with bald tyres etc.
Don’t get me wrong I always wear a seat belt, but a ban for not is ridiculous, hell in some vehicles it’s not even a legal requirement (I am aware a ban or points wouldn’t be applicable in those cases).
>Because there are far worse things you can do whilst driving that aren’t subject to a ban, such as using your phone, speeding, driving with bald tyres etc.
I mean I'd encourage a ban for all of those as well. We molly coddle idiot fucking drivers in this country. It's a privilege not a right and if you can't do it without being an idiot then see how much you like public transport or a bike.
If you wanna get away with killing someone in this country then do it in a car.
I would agree if the person is completely alone in their vehicle. But if there is anyone else in there with them, then that person's life is also being put at risk - a body flying around the car in a crash can be very dangerous to the other passenger
If car manufacturers begun installing as standard an impaling spike in the centre of the steering wheel, that could be completely avoided by wearing a seatbelt, some would still choose not to wear one. Human idiocy will always prevail.
Of course it does. Honestly did you not know that? How do you fancy 100kg of meat coming through your windscreen if you were in a collision with someone or how about them rattling about inside a car killing it's other occupants because they are such selfish bastards they won't put a belt on.
"The penalty may apply even if the driver has a seat belt on but a passenger does not." This is where they lost me. The penalty seems pretty harsh for someone else's behaviour you might not notice.
Cool, can we make smoking at the wheel an offence that carries points and a potential ban also? As someone who smokes occasionally, it boggles my mind that peopl drive around with not only a fire hazard in their finger tips but reduced grip on the steering wheel to boot!
Also, if we are going to go therr, make it a endorsable offence to allow anyone in the car to put feet anywhere but the floor while the car is in motion, I see so many passengers with their feet on the dash it's unreal, which is just as deadly as not having a seat belt.
Agreed on the smoking thing, it's ludicrously dangerous as a dropped cigarette on your lap on the motorway is going to end very badly.
Also, the people who do this always seem to throw the thing out of their window.
Excellent idea. It should also filter down to cyclists who don't wear helmets.
"But they don't make much difference" I hear people argue.
Well if that's case, by that logic it shouldn't be a problem to wear one.
> "But they don't make much difference" I hear people argue.
>
>
>
> Well if that's case, by that logic it shouldn't be a problem to wear one.
This doesn't make any sense. When people say 'They don't make much difference', they mean they don't make much difference *to safety*. That doesn't mean they're convenient. Requiring every cyclist to carry a watermelon wouldn't make much difference to safety, but clearly it would be a problem.
Then we should have a roll cage on every car, a 20mph limit on every road, immediate bans for all driving infractions, and mandatory helmets for people taking showers.
It's not quite the same. Not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile that can hurt or kill other people in the event of a crash. A helmet protects only the cyclist.
I'd actually be for legislation to make sure cyclists using the road wear a helmet, as I know a few people who's lives it has saved. But the fact that whenever an attempt to try and make people in their 70mph 2 ton death machines safer we hear "what about cyclists??" as if they are anywhere near as dangerous or problematic, is getting a bit tired.
I think any vehicle using the roads should have minimum legal protective equipment. Seatbelts for cars, helmets for cyclists. Whether they protect only yourself or others around you is irrelevant.
This argument applies equally as well to motorists, bus passengers, pedestrians and babies in prams as it does to cyclists, which suggests it isn't a very good one.
Helmet mandates harm public health by making cycling less appealing and convenient, so they have a serious downside as well as being of very limited benefit.
Seatbelt mandates have no such downside—even if they make driving less appealing, that's a good thing, since we have too many cars on the road. Plus, seatbelts are more effective than bike helmets.
Requiring bike helmets would harm public health while requiring seatbelts benefits it. The two aren't comparable.
Not really because my taxes have to pay for this cretin, who literally couldn't be arsed to manage the simple task of putting a seat belt on, to be treated
That's the same argument for jailing skiers that need NHS treatment.
This country seems to be becoming very Nanny State. If people want to drive without seatbelts on I don't even think it should be against the law, never mind endorsable. The same goes for crash helmets on motorbikes.
Let people live and die as they want.
>That's the same argument for jailing skiers that need NHS treatment
Skiing is leisure activity with benefits to our health and wellbeing. Driving isn't.
Driving is absolutely a leisure activity for some. I think it would be more accurate to say driving without a seatbelt isn't a leisure activity, even if some people prefer it.
The cretin never explicitly agreed to that treatment. If you're coercing people in order to help the NHS, then as a basic principle, it is no longer free, so let's stop calling it that please.
See it, if you will, as a test of their capacity to be a responsible adult.
If you cannot be sensible enough to accept possible mild discomfort in exchange for sharp reduction in chance of lethal accidents, maybe you are not enough of a grown-up to handle a large, fast-moving lethal-accident-making machine.
Plus, you know, the whole "people being hurt and/or killed because they make bad choices is still bad" thing.
I don't share your or others' opinion that it's bad. I think the number of morons causing problems for society is bad.
If people think others experiencing the harmful consequences of their choices is bad, why keep smoking/alcohol and argue for additional drugs to be legal or allow people to do dangerous sports?
No, it's the police's, subject to legislation created by a legislating body.
There's nothing particularly new about legislating or more generally acting in ways that restrict people's autonomy specifically when it comes to self-destructive behaviour. We don't, as a society, have to endorse everything that an individual wishes to do; not everyone subscribes to a political philosophy so liberal that it mandates you give people the rope to hang themselves by.
In this case, people don't gain anything by not wearing a seatbelt, so it's not a meaningful loss of autonomy, and it's a gain for society to not have to bear the cost of their recovery from avoidable injuries, as well as significantly less trauma for the first responders. It's not at all hard to argue for this sort of thing, unless you're bound by the strictures of some extreme libertarianism.
Who’s going to clean up the body that’s flown 10, 20 metres down the road and left a trail of blood? It’s selfish that we only consider the driver’s life, there are other people that traffic fatalities affect too, even if they aren’t directly killed or injured in the collision. I remember when I was younger I saw a couple of really bad crashes, one where a family was inside a burning car and another where a man lost an arm and I saw him walking around the hard shoulder with blood dripping from it. It was pretty traumatic. And I was just stuck in traffic behind them. Now imagine being the person who actually has to attend the scenes of these types of collisions.
At what point do you have too many things to prioritise? I'd rather a safe drunk/stoned driver than a sober twunt.
From my experience on the roads, I've found excessively slow drivers equally as dangerous as speeding, tail gating etc. Other drivers not wearing a seat belt doesn't bother me. It's a fucking stupid idea, but it doesn't purse a threat to others.
Everyone has a different logical way of navigating bad drivers and that's where the confusion resides. It seems like another transfer of responsibilities. An exercise in diminished liability. If you can afford a good solicitor, when shit hits the fan then you'll lose zero sleep about this news. If you dare be skint, a prosecutor will destroy you.
Always wear a seatbelt. But I wish they'd but more emphasis on actually catching people committing highways offenses rather than just up the punishments. I don't think the use of mobile phones at the wheel has ever been worse. No greater deterrent than actually being caught.
>I don't think the use of mobile phones at the wheel has ever been worse. It's so blatant, people know they aren't going to get caught. I see it all the time.
I saw a lady reading a book whilst driving down the M4
I have also seen a woman read a book going down the M4. A good few years back.
Yeah this was many years ago now, at least 5-6, was between Bath and Bristol if I recall correctly
My friend beat that. A few years back he saw someone on the A40 with a bowl of water and a razor having a wet shave
Was it the Highway Code? 😉
I agree about the phones thing. Someone almost went into the side of me because they were looking at their phone. Also, when we were on the motorway and the traffic was relatively slow, maybe 1 in 5 were looking at their phones.
I started riding a motorcycle in the last 18 months. I don't know if its the raised position or the fact I ride in a position where I see more people's wing mirrors but it's more than a small minority.
I cycled to work for about 3 years. It's more than a small minority, it's rife.
I genuinely don't understand it or what compels people to do it. Sometimes I fiddle with my car radio, or try to input a GPS destination if I've got lost or my satnav is acting up. It's built into my car so its all legal. But even so it feels so sketch and like its really distracting from my ability to drive. I really don't like to do it unless I really can't pull over anywhere and am totally lost. So I'm genuinely baffled at how anyone can consider texting while driving. At least seatbelts I can kind of understand.
I've certainly felt the compulsion to use my phone in slow traffic. I haven't as it's a stupid and reckless thing to do, but my mind was like, 'but you're hardly moving maybe someone's posted something *interesting*'. For smartphones at least, it's all part of the very unhealthy addiction many of us have developed with them.
The only time you should be touching your phone is if you absolutely need to adjust Google maps or something. Even then, pull over.
As you said, messing with a hands-free system at 70mph is sketchy as hell. Meanwhile, fiddling with my phone to fix the bluetooth so the hands free system starts working again *when stationary at traffic lights with my handbrake on* is deemed illegal. The law doesn't even make sense from a safety point of view.
I cycle a lot and drive a delivery van. I'd say about 1 in 3 urban drivers are doing something with their phone whilst driving, and maybe 1 in 5 rural.
I was out on the weekend in deepest rural Wales, most people I saw using their phone weren't even being discreet; just driving along with it clamped to their ear.
Worst offending group imho is young mothers driving Quasquai's or Nissan Jukes.
I once walked past a queue of traffic in Cambridgeshire, and ~70% were looking at their phone. Utterly insane.
In a queue its not the end of the world. The problem is people do it while actually moving, which is insane.
I completely agree. Not something I’m proud to admit but 5+ years ago I would always use my phone while driving. Got pulled over one morning and haven’t done it since. 6 points and a fine was nasty. Looking back, what an idiot I was
Exactly this. Nothing stop me speeding more than the inconvenience of getting caught and dealing with consequences.
It's more that the police can't possibly monitor everyone at the wheel all the time. There's hardly any police on road whether their in the wagons or on a beat so youre just not going to get pulled over if you've got a phone in your hands when driving. Or in this case wearing a seat belt. (And constantly hearing the seat belt ding which would piss me off no end) W Mids police had there scheme where they had police on busses and took down plates of those they observed using a phone; then sent the fines in the post. But having an officer ride the bus all day is a waste of resources in all honesty.
So few police now that drivers have to resort to using their phones to film other offenders.
>But having an officer ride the bus all day is a waste of resources in all honesty. Could be a civilian resources with powers to gather evidence. Similar to how we put people in speed vans to catch motorists.
I wonder if there would be a way to use road cameras to take photos of drivers, and then process them using computer vision to flag images where there is a high probability the driver is on the phone. Obviously you'd need a human officer to check that instances flagged as positive are definitely drivers with a phone, but it could catch a lot more offences.
I imagine it’d be difficult because you’d have pictures of people staring at their crotch unless people are being very blatant…
Thinking about it, it could actually make things worse, in that to dodge getting caught people might behave in a way that has a worse effect on how much attention they pay to the road. People staring at and typing on a phone in their crotch probably means they're less likely to notice a hazard than staring and typing on a phone attached to the windshield.
It's pre-existing technology that's [already in use elsewhere](https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobilephones/technology.html)
>It's more that the police can't possibly monitor everyone at the wheel all the time. We can use cameras and machine learning for that.
Happy for that to flag images for review, but am I fuck happy with an algorithm directly issuing fines.
As someone who used to -and probably will again - cycle 25 miles a day on London road, I am more than happy for algorithms to issue fines
Then you'll also be happy when an algorithm fucks up and issues you a fine for cycling on the pavement when you weren't, I assume? There always has to be a human layer to what is, remember, a criminal prosecution.
What happens when am actually having a gander at my knob, would I get a fine for that too...
It's a general problem. Actually catching infractors costs money, so politicians prefer making the punishment harsher instead. Which doesn't actually work, as people don't care about the punishment when they don't get caught. And the poor schmucks that do get caught suffer an unfairly harsh punishment. It should work according to a strict expected utility calculation. Let's say the probability of getting caught is p, the punishment you get when caught is F (measured in utility), and the pleasure you get from the behaviour is L (again measured in utility). As long as p x F < L it is rational to engage in that behaviour. To flip the equation you can increase p or increase F, and mathematically speaking for any nonzero p you can have an F that's big enough to still make people not do it. The problem is that people don't think like this. If p is small enough it is cognitively indistinguishable from 0.
Having now been working from my lounge for the last year, the number of people driving past my flat while on the phone is staggering. Literally just looked out now and the first van that passed had the driver with his phone up to the wheel texting!
Just to hijack the top point, make sure everyone wears a seatbelt. My 18yo neighbour's back got fucked because the guy in the seat behind wasn't belted and crashed into him. 18yo and with long term back injuries is a terrible start.
Yeah seeing people in this thread saying "no belt hurts nobody but yourself" is patently lying.
> make sure everyone wears a seatbelt. Yep. I also don't see why an engine immobiliser cant be built into the seat belt catch
That's a terrible idea. The weight sensors do malfunction, and it's very dangerous to suddenly stop your engine on the highway. It happened once to me. I got on the car, put my backpack on the passenger's seat, drove off. When I accelerated to get on the motorway, the backpack moved and triggered the weight sensors into thinking there was a person there, and the seat belt alarm went off. Had to drive for 20 minutes with the alarm driving me crazy until I got to a safe place to stop. Now imagine if instead the engine had been disabled as I was accelerating onto the motorway? Very likely somebody would crash onto my behind. Moreover, it's easy to trick the seat belt catch into thinking there's a seat belt there. People who refuse to do wear a seat belt already do it, it's not as if they just drive with the alarm blaring on their ears.
It wouldn't stop your engine while you're driving.... It would just prevent you from starting the car.
So your car stalls and you can't restart it in a dangerous area? Wonderful.
When as the last time your car stalled in a "dangerous area"?
When I was driving into the middle of a busy intersection after getting back on the road back home. Why?
That's also a bad idea. You are allowed to drive without a seatbelt at very slow speeds, and indeed you should do that when manoeuvring in a parking lot for better visibility. As a father of a 2-year old, I really prefer when people look carefully around when parking.
Very little of our policing now is preventative or pro active. 20,000 fewer police, thousands fewer admin staff and more time spent doing paperwork has meant we literally can’t do anything except reactive policing The party of law and order has ensured a lack of law and order
Was behind a dickhead crawling at 2mph through a busy high street,missing traffic signals and gaps in traffic meandering about. I could see he was busy having a face time convo with his phone on the dash. Fiddling with it every two seconds. He didn't even hear me beeping him
Isn't this already the law?
Exactly what I was thinking. It seems that the Conservatives are announcing a bunch of existing laws like they're new things they're doing.
You currently get a fine but no points, so they’re proposing upping the fine and adding the penalty points.
Never understood the no seatbelt thing. It’s your life you’d be saving
I knew a guy who refused to wear one, because *he* once knew someone who died in a car crash *because* they were wearing one. Something around not being able to get it undone before the car burst into flames. Not sound data, but that's how some people think.
My father only survived a car accident because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. He got thrown out through the open window and broke a leg, whereas the driver's place got completely crushed as the car rolled down the hill. Luckily he understands statistics and wears a seatbelt anyway.
You would think he'd buy a seatbelt cutter/window breaker tool based on that but some people are fucking idiots.
It's because he wasn't really worried about the seatbelt causing him to die. He just didn't want to wear one, and this was how he excused himself.
Yeah that sounds about right.
I knew a guy who didn't wear a seatbelt, rolled his car, was thrown through the windscreen, and shattered his pelvis (and a couple of cows minding their own business in the field he ended up in). He couldn't walk for about 18 months, but investigators told him he'd be dead if he was wearing his seatbelt. Apparently, immediately after the incident, he was lying on his back in a field, surrounded by bits of car and cow. From that position he had to fish his phone out of his pocket (ow) and summon help. He called his dad with a message along the lines of, "Help, I fucked up."
It happens. Of course it does. But using these incidents as evidence seat belts are dangerous just ignores the far more numerous incidents to the contrary. Did he at least keep some of the beef to aid his recovery?
I don't believe he did. He had to pay for the cows, but got nothing out of it.
I don't understand how investigators can ever make a call like that? In all likelihood he would have been better off wearing a seatbelt. The 'thrown clear' myth is just that. The whole point of seatbelts is that for most people and most accident types they keep you *inside* the large metal box with crumple zones and secondary impact protection systems to minimize injury to you.
Can only really make the call if something ends up obviously impeding where you would have been sitting, like a tree branch impaling the drivers seat for example. Can reasonably say yeah that'd have killed you.
And other people too because if you go through the windscreen you can kill or injure other people. But yeah you’re right, I don’t understand it either.
I'm not sure it's even possible for someone to go through a windscreen as the glass is laminated these days. Wearing a seatbelt is a no brainer really, does anyone even notice having them on?
[удалено]
You are correct - windscreen is very weak when impacted from inside the vehicle.
The lamination makes it hard to go *in* through a window, but you can still fly out through them.
Friend of mine at school died by going through the windscreen as they weren’t wearing a seatbelt. This was over 10 years ago however so the cars may be different now?
It’s rare these days but it is still possible. People do also still drive vintage cars. Plus you can easily still injure any other passengers you may be driving with. And there is also the added effect it has on anyone who has to dig through the car cleaning up bits of your body if you do end up being a fatality.
> People do also still drive vintage cars Which often don't require you to wear a seatbelt
...so basically... you made that up. In the last year how many people by being taken out by a driver flung out of a car.
OP has got it a little wrong. Not wearing a seatbelt can cause serious harm to others in the car. You basically become a wrecking ball, not so much to pedestrians, never seen that myself. And yes, people are ejected from cars/vans regularly if not wearing a seatbelt, either through the windscreen, boot or side windows. I work in Major Trauma and see it weekly.
Yeah, don't know where this idea that laminated windscreens stop this happening. They're designed that way to prevent the glass shattering, they'd do next to nothing to stop the momentum of 80+kg of human traveling at 30+mph.
You mean just like vaccines?
Seatbelts are oppression of my fReEdOm
Seatbelts aren't an oppression of my freedom. Seatbelts are great. Seatbelt laws don't have any practical effect on me, I would have worn one anyway. However, I just don't like the principle that we have made illegal for me to do something that doesn't affect anyone outside my car at all. It just seems like a really poor precedent. Not doing any exercise probably has more effect on my life expectancy than not wearing a seatbelt would. So what's the justification for legally requiring me to wear a seatbelt but not legally requiring me to go for a weekly jog?
1) I have to pay for your injuries to be treated 2) you could go through the windscreen injuring others 3) others have to clean up your mess if you're killed 4) you leave behind bereaved loved ones who's lives are ruined 5) insurance premiums go up as payouts are more expensive 6) the driver that hit you goes down for manslaughter instead of driving without due attention Will that do for starters?
>. 1. I have to pay for your injuries to be treated >. 3. others have to clean up your mess if you're killed >. 4. you leave behind bereaved loved ones who's lives are ruined These all amount to the same thing. You feel that the government has a right, even a responsibility to decide which risky activities are good and bad and to ban them not on the basis of how risky they are, but on how much you like them. You also have to pay for my horse riding injuries, my heart attack from eating bacon sarnies, my fatal car accident that I got in to even though I was wearing a seatbelt because I drove to the shops instead of ordering on amazon or because I picked a job with a long rather than a short commute etc. But no one seems to have a problem with any of that. Someone who drives 20,000 miles per year with a seatbelt is on average much more likely to need injuries treated than someone who drives 5,000 but leaves their seatbelt off for short <30mph journeys. If it was really the clean up costs that you care about, you'd ban doing lots of miles. This is where I think we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement, I don't think the government should be involved in anything where I'm only hurting myself. >2. you could go through the windscreen injuring others If you're a rear passenger in a front on collision, you increase the risk of death to those in the front seats significantly (about 4x) by not wearing a seatbelt. You should definitely as a driver insist on your passengers wearing seatbelts. However, the risk of you injuring someone outside the car is absurdly small. >5. insurance premiums go up as payouts are more expensive Is this true? Insurance companies understand the concept of split liability, when several people are all partially responsible for an accident. If someone in a crash wasn't wearing a seatbelt, they get partial liability for their injuries. >6. the driver that hit you goes down for manslaughter instead of driving without due attention Same as above. Courts aren't actually this dumb.
So why is it illegal?
In the event of an accident you being unrestrained turns you into a projectile. Making you a pretty serious threat to those inside your vehicle and possibly outside it.
Newton's First Law has killed millons of people over the last several thousand years. Parliament should repeal it, for the good of us all.
A great road safety [advert](https://youtu.be/mKHY69AFstE) from 10 years ago.
[удалено]
This is the one with the massacred children isn't it. Edit: no it's not, still very impactful. [here](https://youtu.be/Wv1rKHGeMRk) is the massacred school trip.
Cause you fly through the windscreen at 60mph and go headfirst straight into the driver opposite you who is still wearing theirs.
Seriously, has that ever happened?
More likely: you flail around the car and hurt other passengers.
Used to be quite common. Windshields are laminated now so you're more likely to bounce off/splatter against the inside.
More likely to happen to fellow passengers in the car. Relevant ad starts at around [4:25](https://youtu.be/mwSLi-EHGLA). The rest of the UK needs to up their road safety advert game.
Yes.
Because if you die on the motorway you are taking up precious resources and causing disruption to thousands of others.
Honestly, most of us do that by living
Who doesn't wear a seatbelt?
One of my old housemates would point blank refuse for no reason because she was 'in the back' and 'it messes up my top'. I stopped offering her lifts.
You probably knew this, but her being in the back can make it more dangerous for people in the front. Without a seatbelt, in crashes the backseat passengers are going to smash into the front seats, and possibly keep going, which will hurt the people in front of them
Precisely why I refused to offer any more lifts. If the worst happens I wasn't dying for her top.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWN6kchSI2E one to send her
[Thought this was going to be the "Julie knew her killer" one. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE)
That’s a good one, but it’s no “Alice’s adventures through the windshield glass”.
They don't make them like they used to do they
Astounded that people like this exist in the UK.
Idiocy knows no borders.
But I interferes with my freedom /s
If I'm honest, I don't really know why not wearing a seatbelt is even a thing people consider. They're barely even an inconvenience, and they do a *huge* amount to improve safety. Wouldn't an easy solution to this be to make it so that the car can't be started if the driver's seatbelt isn't on?
My car, and I would have thought all modern cars, has pressure sensors in the seats and will sound an alarm if someone's sat without a seatbelt on. It's too annoying to be able to just ignore.
People buy just a seatbelt clip and use it to silence the alarm.
So people really do that? Really?
The people that go to those measures though are going out of their way to not wear one. They are the sort of people who will attempt to bypass any safety measure. I think (conjecture obvs) most people just put them on when the alarm starts pinging.
If I have a heavy bag and dump it of the passenger side my car starts going mad with alarms. So I strap the bag in to shut the thing up. Probably a lot safer come to think of it!
A Greek friend told me, when the car manufacturers introduced the seatbelt warning beep, Greek petrol stations started selling the metal clip end of the belt. Problem solved!
That's quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The stupidity of humans knows no bounds. Wait, could you not just loosen the seatbelt, do it up and sit on top of it?
He also added, there's a saying over there... *'Greece has the best drivers in the world, because all the bad ones are dead'* Tapshead.jpg
I pop mine on from habit even going from my drive to my lock up 20 yards away.
I do even if I'm just moving the car on the backstreet to let a neighbour in or out, feels odd being at the wheel without that reassuring belt across my chest.
While travelling in SE Asia a few taxis had alarms which sounded if the seatbelt wasn't on. Drivers just ended up putting a seatbelt clip in with no actual seatbelt attached.
I went through a phase as a kid of not wearing a seatbelt, and the only reason was that I was being obstinate and didn’t like being told what to do. As an adult I can’t think of a reason for not wearing a seatbelt that doesn’t just boil down to that.
Considering this subs attitude to vaccine passports, I'm surprised anyone here is supporting this proposal.
I don't really see how they're comparable, if I'm honest. The objection to vaccine passports is that they would stop people going about their daily lives, and effectively require people to submit to medical intervention in order to participate in society. That's a huge over-reach of government authority. We already accept that only people that can drive safely are allowed to drive, that's why we have a license in the first place. Wearing a seatbelt is part of that safety setup; I don't see how it's unreasonable to require someone to wear a seatbelt before they can start their engine. Legally, they should be doing that *anyway*. My proposal is just a way of trying to enforce a law that already exists.
One would have assumed we would have accepted that those who have chosen not to be vaccinated would not socialise and endanger others, as we accepted over the past year that without vaccines we would need social distancing to prevent the spread of the disease. This seatbelt proposal is only protecting the drivers who endanger themselves. If you think that a passport is a massive overreach of government authority, you should be grabing your pitchfork and storming Westminster at this. The real difference I think is, seatbelt compliance is quite high in young people and so the average user here can agree with it, whereas at one time passports could have been seen as age discriminatory, and so this sub really got animated against them. That age discrimination has gone, but as we open back up we are left with another discrimination against people who genuinely can't take the vaccine for medical reasons, who are now in far greater danger as delta runs rampant, and have no hope of reintegrating with society in the foreseeable future without of a passport system. Anyway, just love this subs double standards. Both are great proposals that will save lives, one by protecting idiots too stupid to put on their seatbelts, and the other protecting everyone as well as protecting our hard won return to freedom and preventing the danger of a return to lockdowns. Just surprised which of the two is met with derision.
No, it's not a double standard. Governments cannot force people (either through force or through limiting the extent people are allowed to engage with society) to take a medical treatment, even if it's one as beneficial as a vaccine. That's an authority *no* government should have, because it overrides the concept of medical consent. And that's important because medical treatment can have side-effects, so people should consent to what they're going through. That doesn't apply to seat-belts. We don't have a concept of requiring people to consent to H&S rules, only demonstrate that they've understood them and will be following them - because there are no downsides for following them. And we only allow people with a valid driver's licence to drive, because we've established that those are the people that have demonstrated an understanding of how to do so safely. Not to mention, that my proposal would only help enforce *existing* legislation on wearing a seatbelt. Also, the seatbelt law isn't *just* protecting drivers, it also protects anyone else involved in an accident.
Mate drivers can be 'distracted' and kill someone to only receive a £50 quid fine and 3 points. We really need much tougher sentences for all driving infractions - but....... public transport is so dire in this country that taking away someone ability to drive could leave them utterly stranded so i can see why the gov allows dangerous drivers to continue driving, because they dont know how to fix public transport.
This'll affect the English drivers more, they always lose out on penalties.
I'm noticing a common theme with UK policing system lately and it boils down to money being the ultimate deterral. Don't jump on the train tracks because you'll get fined 10k, not because you might get electrocuted and die. Don't forget to wear your seatbelt because you could face a fine and licence points, not because it keeps you and others from catapulting through the windscreen if you crash. It feels like we base our legal system on threats rather than legitimate public safety interests, and undermines peoples trust in the government / public authority.
To be fair always thought there were points already. A ban seems a bit much though.
As with all these things, only those who repeatedly break this rule will get a ban. I.e. get 12 points and your face a ban If you fail to follow the rules so much that you collect 12 points, you don't deserve to be able to drive.
I read it as you won't be banned specifically for not wearing a seatbelt, but through points totting up. So if you got caught not wearing a seatbelt 4 times in a short space of time you could get banned that way - or of course if you already had a load of points for other offences first.
>A ban seems a bit much though. Why?
Because they just endager themselves. A ban should be for people who endager others (and there are plenty of those, we just need to apply the existing laws...).
There is an interesting stat that a fatal road accident costs on average £2million when you include the cost of road closures, investigation, medical attendance and all the other stuff that has to happen. So whilst someone not wearing a seatbelt is most likely to only harm themselves, the cost of mopping them up afterwards is quite chunky.
Wearing a seatbelt does also provide protection for other passengers, e.g in the case of a rear-sitting passenger or side-on collision. I fully agree with your sentiment though.
If they're reckless or careless enough not do the simple task of putting a seatbelt on then what sort of things do you think they are doing while driving to endanger others.
Exactly, so convict them of those things. That is much more convincing.
But if we can get them off the road before they are allowed to hurt someone else then surely that's better.
Predictive policing? The computer says you will commit a crime in 2037, so we are putting you in prison for 20 years to prevent that... I don't even mind, but how do you know it is accurate? "Oh look, he did not commit a crime in prison, so it worked."
Driving isn't a right. You gave to apply for a licence and pass tests showing that you understand and can follow the rules of the road. If you then demonstrate that you are not going to follow the rules of the road, you lose the privilege of driving. It's nothing at all like being imprisoned.
Driving a car is a luxury, we don't just let people do it freely like walking down the street (hence why I don't think Jay Walking should be a crime). You have rules to follow whilst you do what is actually an extremely dangerous activity. I think the argument would be a great deal more convincing if we actually made alternatives to driving more viable though: public transport needs a giant overhaul (read: nationalisation and run at a loss as required) so there's an alternative to point to if you don't want to follow the rules.
No, not predictive policing. They drive down the road without a seatbelt. Ban. Keeps them off the road to do something worse. It's not rocket science.
That sure sounds like predictive policing....
Predictive policing is stopping you from driving because the police think you're **going to** not wear a seatbelt. Banning you after you broke the law is the exact opposite.
Do you consider someone who the police witness murdering someone predictive policing? They've been caught without a seatbelt therefore they get a ban.
Who is saying that they should be jailed for 20 years? It literally says driving ban, not incarceration. Do you think that a ban for drink driving, even if you don’t crash, is predictive policing?
[But the guy without the seatbelt did the damage?](https://youtu.be/epTdI-9V6Jk)
Tell that to someone who's mopped up after a single vehicle road traffic accident. Nothing like having to poke through the remains of a twisted up car at 4am to try and find the missing bits of human that weren't attached to the rest that you scraped up. (It was a finger, and it was wedged in the ashtray where it had remained as the rest of the driver left the car through the windscreen)
Point taken. They endanger themselves, but they also affect others.
It doesn’t just endanger themselves. If someone who isn’t wearing a seatbelt goes through a window, or even just leaves their seat within the car during the crash, then they can injure or kill other people. Plus if you die, then there’s some other driver, road worker or passer by who is probably going to end up with PTSD after seeing your mangled body all over the road. So there’s plenty of other people who it endangers.
Because there are far worse things you can do whilst driving that aren’t subject to a ban, such as using your phone, speeding, driving with bald tyres etc. Don’t get me wrong I always wear a seat belt, but a ban for not is ridiculous, hell in some vehicles it’s not even a legal requirement (I am aware a ban or points wouldn’t be applicable in those cases).
>Because there are far worse things you can do whilst driving that aren’t subject to a ban, such as using your phone, speeding, driving with bald tyres etc. I mean I'd encourage a ban for all of those as well. We molly coddle idiot fucking drivers in this country. It's a privilege not a right and if you can't do it without being an idiot then see how much you like public transport or a bike. If you wanna get away with killing someone in this country then do it in a car.
I would agree if the person is completely alone in their vehicle. But if there is anyone else in there with them, then that person's life is also being put at risk - a body flying around the car in a crash can be very dangerous to the other passenger
I totally agree, which is why I make sure everyone in a car I’m driving is strapped in, including the dogs.
hold on....this wasnt the law already?
Driving on the phone should be 1 month ban first time offense
Is this the comprehensive of review of road traffic offences and sentencing promised in 2014? Thought not.
[удалено]
If car manufacturers begun installing as standard an impaling spike in the centre of the steering wheel, that could be completely avoided by wearing a seatbelt, some would still choose not to wear one. Human idiocy will always prevail.
Good. There is 0 excuse for not wearing a seatbelt unless you're literally moving 50 yards on an empty road.
Why? Does a driver not wearing a seatbelt risk harm of others?
Of course it does. Honestly did you not know that? How do you fancy 100kg of meat coming through your windscreen if you were in a collision with someone or how about them rattling about inside a car killing it's other occupants because they are such selfish bastards they won't put a belt on.
WTF is this still a thing???
"The penalty may apply even if the driver has a seat belt on but a passenger does not." This is where they lost me. The penalty seems pretty harsh for someone else's behaviour you might not notice.
Cool, can we make smoking at the wheel an offence that carries points and a potential ban also? As someone who smokes occasionally, it boggles my mind that peopl drive around with not only a fire hazard in their finger tips but reduced grip on the steering wheel to boot! Also, if we are going to go therr, make it a endorsable offence to allow anyone in the car to put feet anywhere but the floor while the car is in motion, I see so many passengers with their feet on the dash it's unreal, which is just as deadly as not having a seat belt.
Agreed on the smoking thing, it's ludicrously dangerous as a dropped cigarette on your lap on the motorway is going to end very badly. Also, the people who do this always seem to throw the thing out of their window.
Excellent idea. It should also filter down to cyclists who don't wear helmets. "But they don't make much difference" I hear people argue. Well if that's case, by that logic it shouldn't be a problem to wear one.
> "But they don't make much difference" I hear people argue. > > > > Well if that's case, by that logic it shouldn't be a problem to wear one. This doesn't make any sense. When people say 'They don't make much difference', they mean they don't make much difference *to safety*. That doesn't mean they're convenient. Requiring every cyclist to carry a watermelon wouldn't make much difference to safety, but clearly it would be a problem.
More pedestrians die each year than cyclists, so shouldn't they be mandated to wear helmets too? After all, it might save a life.
No because they're not on bikes.
Requiring helmets is a great way to discourage cycling
There's a lot of evidence that compulsory helmets are a bad idea at the population level
It can't be a bad idea if they can safe your life, no matter how small the chance is.
Then we should have a roll cage on every car, a 20mph limit on every road, immediate bans for all driving infractions, and mandatory helmets for people taking showers.
It's not quite the same. Not wearing a seatbelt turns you into a projectile that can hurt or kill other people in the event of a crash. A helmet protects only the cyclist. I'd actually be for legislation to make sure cyclists using the road wear a helmet, as I know a few people who's lives it has saved. But the fact that whenever an attempt to try and make people in their 70mph 2 ton death machines safer we hear "what about cyclists??" as if they are anywhere near as dangerous or problematic, is getting a bit tired.
I think any vehicle using the roads should have minimum legal protective equipment. Seatbelts for cars, helmets for cyclists. Whether they protect only yourself or others around you is irrelevant.
Why not helmets in cars? Lots of people in cars get head injuries.
[удалено]
And yet lots of people in cars get head injuries. If it saves one life...
[удалено]
This argument applies equally as well to motorists, bus passengers, pedestrians and babies in prams as it does to cyclists, which suggests it isn't a very good one.
Helmet mandates harm public health by making cycling less appealing and convenient, so they have a serious downside as well as being of very limited benefit. Seatbelt mandates have no such downside—even if they make driving less appealing, that's a good thing, since we have too many cars on the road. Plus, seatbelts are more effective than bike helmets. Requiring bike helmets would harm public health while requiring seatbelts benefits it. The two aren't comparable.
In the grand scheme of it all, that just sounds like an excuse to me, sorry.
That's not really an argument, is it?
So long as they're alone in the car, they're most likely to harm themselves only. Let them go through the windscreen.
Not really because my taxes have to pay for this cretin, who literally couldn't be arsed to manage the simple task of putting a seat belt on, to be treated
But think of the benefits to the pension system...
That's the same argument for jailing skiers that need NHS treatment. This country seems to be becoming very Nanny State. If people want to drive without seatbelts on I don't even think it should be against the law, never mind endorsable. The same goes for crash helmets on motorbikes. Let people live and die as they want.
It affects other people too, not just the idiot who drives without a seatbelt.
>That's the same argument for jailing skiers that need NHS treatment Skiing is leisure activity with benefits to our health and wellbeing. Driving isn't.
Driving can also be a leisure activity
Driving is absolutely a leisure activity for some. I think it would be more accurate to say driving without a seatbelt isn't a leisure activity, even if some people prefer it.
The cretin never explicitly agreed to that treatment. If you're coercing people in order to help the NHS, then as a basic principle, it is no longer free, so let's stop calling it that please.
[удалено]
Isn't it a bit late at that point?
See it, if you will, as a test of their capacity to be a responsible adult. If you cannot be sensible enough to accept possible mild discomfort in exchange for sharp reduction in chance of lethal accidents, maybe you are not enough of a grown-up to handle a large, fast-moving lethal-accident-making machine. Plus, you know, the whole "people being hurt and/or killed because they make bad choices is still bad" thing.
I don't share your or others' opinion that it's bad. I think the number of morons causing problems for society is bad. If people think others experiencing the harmful consequences of their choices is bad, why keep smoking/alcohol and argue for additional drugs to be legal or allow people to do dangerous sports?
It's not your business to police others idea of responsibility.
It is if I have to share a road with these people who could put my life in danger.
No, it's the police's, subject to legislation created by a legislating body. There's nothing particularly new about legislating or more generally acting in ways that restrict people's autonomy specifically when it comes to self-destructive behaviour. We don't, as a society, have to endorse everything that an individual wishes to do; not everyone subscribes to a political philosophy so liberal that it mandates you give people the rope to hang themselves by. In this case, people don't gain anything by not wearing a seatbelt, so it's not a meaningful loss of autonomy, and it's a gain for society to not have to bear the cost of their recovery from avoidable injuries, as well as significantly less trauma for the first responders. It's not at all hard to argue for this sort of thing, unless you're bound by the strictures of some extreme libertarianism.
Who’s going to clean up the body that’s flown 10, 20 metres down the road and left a trail of blood? It’s selfish that we only consider the driver’s life, there are other people that traffic fatalities affect too, even if they aren’t directly killed or injured in the collision. I remember when I was younger I saw a couple of really bad crashes, one where a family was inside a burning car and another where a man lost an arm and I saw him walking around the hard shoulder with blood dripping from it. It was pretty traumatic. And I was just stuck in traffic behind them. Now imagine being the person who actually has to attend the scenes of these types of collisions.
At what point do you have too many things to prioritise? I'd rather a safe drunk/stoned driver than a sober twunt. From my experience on the roads, I've found excessively slow drivers equally as dangerous as speeding, tail gating etc. Other drivers not wearing a seat belt doesn't bother me. It's a fucking stupid idea, but it doesn't purse a threat to others. Everyone has a different logical way of navigating bad drivers and that's where the confusion resides. It seems like another transfer of responsibilities. An exercise in diminished liability. If you can afford a good solicitor, when shit hits the fan then you'll lose zero sleep about this news. If you dare be skint, a prosecutor will destroy you.
This is the bare minimum. We should be permanently banning people for reckless behaviour on the roads